1 11.11.11 Research Chair on Development Cooperation – Advanced Draft – DO NOT QUOTE
Scenario 3: Cold Green
What does 2020 look like? New year 2020 is celebrated in a world with a prospect of sustainability, but only in ecological terms. Natural disasters combined with economically instability finally raised enough political will and public support to address global environmental problems. Strong international environmental regulation is now in place and implemented successfully. Climate change is largely under control, the scarcity of water, land and energy resources is still a reality but manageable. Yet these successes have come at a grave cost. They do not respect the right to development in developing countries, and they do not take into account the disproportionate effects the policy measures have on the poor. Therefore a number of perverse side- effects of the green policies have resulted in a lack of progress for the excluded in society, both in developing countries, the West, and in the emerging economies. As a result, the relative power of the ‘haves’ continues to rise, while the ‘have-nots’ continue to be pushed to the margins. Development cooperation is instrumentalised for the sake of the CO2 reduction obsession of governments in the West and the BRIC countries. By 2020, the inequality is becoming unsustainable and African countries, who are instrumental in keeping climate change in check and producing green energy (for the EU), start looking for ways to join forces and challenge the power balance. How did we get there? 2012 to 2015 - The shift towards green policies and practices was triggered by extreme weather conditions and subsequent flooding in Western Europe and China in 2013-2014, re-enforced by a range of other
- events. The combination of the tangible effects of climate change, a deepening financial and economical
crisis, and the first effects of fuel poverty, brought a sense of urgency in the thinking about ecological
- sustainability. The general public in Western and BRIC countries started worrying about the loss of welfare
and wanted drastic answers. In response, populist-nationalist parties co-opted green thinking in the core of their political strategies. Big infrastructure works, green investments in public transport, housing and office buildings, and massive awareness raising campaigns resulted in significantly lower carbon exhaust. At the international level, an unusual coalition of the EU and China lobbied heavily and successfully within the WTO for very strict eco-regulation, resulting in new eco-labels that are binding and monitored through stringent ISO-norms. This new regulation, in combination with technological breakthroughs in manufacturing and transport, and a growing sense of the impact of scarcity of natural resources, triggered a fundamental shift in the incentive system for business internationally. It became not only rewarding, but necessary to invest drastically in eco-friendly production and transport systems. The middle classes in BRIC countries continue to grow, but, except for Brazil, inequality continues to increase. 2015 to 2020 - Because of six different mechanisms, these green strategies became a source of inequality rather than a catalyst for human development: (1) A global Matthew effect : rich and BRIC countries did long term investments in expensive green technology and infrastructure and got their production systems more efficient, self-reliant and effective. The poorest countries and regions did not have the funds, nor the technological skills to do the same. Consequently, the eco-centered regulations became a structural disadvantage for the poorest countries; (2) Bio-eco tandem: the marriage of bio- and eco-thinking resulted in systems that strongly benefit local food and local products. They provided the moral arguments for lower CO2 production and shorter transport chains. This happened at the expense of agriculture imports Environmental challenges are addressed but at a large social cost